The average US consumer is prepared to pay $162 more for a national clean energy standard (NCES) that would require 80 percent clean energy by 2035, according to researchers at Yale and the George Mason University. This equates to a 13 percent increase in the 2009 average annual household energy bill of $1,250. However, for such a bill to pass through Congress, the increase would have to be restricted to about $50, the researchers found.

In a survey of 1010 US citizens, respondents were asked, among other questions, whether they would support or oppose a national clean energy standard that would require 80 percent of the US's electricity to be generated from clean sources by 2035. At random, respondents received one of three "technological treatments" or definitions of clean energy that included renewable energy sources alone, renewable sources plus natural gas, and renewable sources plus nuclear power. (President Obama's 2011 "80 percent by 2035" NCES proposal allowed for natural gas as a clean energy source.)

Respondents were also presented with differing amounts by which the NCES would increase their energy bill—amounts dubbed "bids" by the research team. These bid amounts fell on incremental values between $5 and $155 inclusive, and were presented to respondents at random.

From the data, researchers derived what they call a mean willingness to pay (WTP)—the additional amount that would tip respondents over the line from eagerness to indifference as to whether NCES policy is passed. Researchers allowed for the possibility of negative WTPs (essentially granting that some respondents might be willing to pay more if it meant a NCES was not enacted). Mean WTP was calculated to be $162 accounting for all definitions of clean energy, increasing to $199 where clean energy was defined as renewable only. The mean WTP fell to $142 and $147 for definitions including natural gas and nuclear power respectively–the margin between the two being not statistically different, according to the researchers.

(Note that their statistical analysis indicated that the mean WTP was actually above the maximum value included in their survey. This suggests that, in designing their questions, they probably cut things off too low.)

The education, gender, household size, income and ethnicity of respondents was also surveyed, and a "probability of support" for a national clean energy standard was established based on respondents' socioeconomic data. Across all socioeconomic groups the researchers found that probability of support fell by one percentage point for every $10 increase in bid amount. When the definition of clean energy is broadened to include natural gas or nuclear power, probability of support falls by between seven and eight percent points–a result deemed "not surprising" by the researchers "given the negative publicity regarding shale gas, hydraulic fracturing and the Fukushima nuclear accident."

Delving into the socioeconomics, researchers found that Republicans, Independents, and respondents with no party allegiance were less likely by 25, 13 and 25 percentage points respectively to support a NCES than respondents that identified themselves as Democrats. White respondents were more likely than nonwhites to support a NCES by a margin of ten percentage points. Support for a national standard was lower among older respondents.

The research additionally modeled the likely voting patterns of members of Congress on an "80 percent by 2035" national standard, assuming members would vote in line with the views of the median voter in their state or congressional district, determined using the US Census American Community Survey.

A NCES that increased electricity bills by the $162 mean WTP would not pass the current 112th House and Senate, the researchers concluded, (though it would have likely made it through the bluer 111th). The researchers concluded that a NCES would pass the Senate if additional household cost increases were kept below $59 per year, while House passage would depend upon costs increases being limited to $48 per year. In other words, to pass both chambers household electricity bills would have to rise, on average, by less than 5 percent.

The research brings into focus the contrast between the views of what the researchers call the "average US citizen" represented in the survey, and those of the conceptual median voter who, theoretically at least, constrains the actions of Members of Congress. "The difference between public opinion and political support that we find is consistent with the observation that a majority of US citizens support clean energy and climate-change policies, whereas the necessary majorities in Congress do not," the researchers conclude. Or to put it another way, for a NCES to become law, the resulting increase in energy bills would likely have to be contained.

The research was presented by Joseph E. Aldy, Matthew J. Kotchen and Anthony A. Leiserowitz in Nature Climate Change on Sunday.